Rule a nation.

[Qwerty]

Suppose you suddenly became the sole ruler of the major country of your residence. You can do anything you want (that the people wouldn't revolt for, obviously) except shift the power to any other source (restore democracy, etc) save after your death. So what do you do? What policies do you change? What government do you arrange to set up post-death? Actually, ignore that last one, Fox's thread covers it.

[xShadowLordx]

Ooh, interesting. Very interesting. Here's what I would do if I ruled the US:

1. Ban corporations from giving campaign contributions of any kind, so our government would finally stop being so corrupt.

2. Publicly tell all the citizens to vote out their incumbent congressmen in the next election. Kind of goes hand in hand with step 1.

3. Immediately dissolve our alliance with Israel, and warn them to stop genociding the Palestinians or else face harsh consequences.

4. Introduce strict energy independence policies. Obama's current plan I believe calls for the reduction of CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050. Pretty pathetic, eh? I would mandate zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (possibly 2060). I would also immediately institute "Drill, baby, drill!" policies (one of the few things me and Republicans agree on). That means immense offshore oil drilling to secure our energy independence.

5. Break all ties with the Saudis (we ain't buying their oil anymore, so they've got no control over us). Publicly condemn them for being a disgraceful, radical, oppressive, pseudo-Islamic state.

6. Publicly condemn/break all ties with every Arab/Middle East country for the same reason.

7. Close down all our military bases in foreign countries. We have no business meddling in their affairs. Bring all our soldiers back home, except the ones in Afghanistan/Pakistan. We can leave after we defeat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In fact, I'll chuck another 100,000 troops in there to get it over with once and for all. Terrorists can't operate anywhere if you occupy the whole damn country.

8. Extend a warm hand of friendship, as well as some handsome cash and military support, to every country we've ever imperialized upon, to get them on their feet and moving forward for once.

9. Introduce strict economic regulation to stop corporations from oppressing the little guys, and hold them accountable for tanking the economy.

10. Consolidate all our 1,000+ intelligence agencies (yes, its true, we actually have that many, go Google it) into one streamlined federal agency.

11. Cut down on red tape by eliminating useless bureaucracies and consolidating other programs.

12. Eliminate medicare. Leave all medical insurance in private hands, but regulate the crap out of it.

13. Eliminate Social Security and all other welfare programs. Institute one simple, efficient, streamlined welfare program that follows one main rule: if you live under the poverty line, you get a certain amount of money every month. No useless red tape, no bureaucracy-choked Rube Goldberg machines. Plain and simple.

14. Give a hell of a lot more money to education. That's our future we're talking about. It's an investment, not an expense.

15. Institute *gasp* Islamic law. (Read: Outlaw gambling, alcohol, drugs, fornication, adultery, gay marriage, dissolve the stock market (honestly, it serves no purpose other than to line the pockets of speculators who don't give a shit about the companies they "invest" in), institute relatively strict dress codes, bring back the death penalty to every state.)

16. Give citizens more political rights. Allow them to directly vote for Supreme Court Justices (I would also change the term for Justices to 10 years instead of life). Give citizens the ability to directly impeach Justices, as well as congressmen and the President. Also give them the ability to directly hold referenda and vote on constitutional amendments.

Will add more if I think of them.

[Qwerty]

I figured it was fine until I got to 15. Dress codes? Seriously? PUBLIC DRESS CODES? What kind of a nation are you trying to make here? You may be the sole ruler but that's no reason to become the sole totalitarian ruler. There's no reason to give people dress codes.

Outlawing drugs/alcohol I can see, but that move would definitely make you very unpopular. Gay marriage I've been over plenty before. Gambling would probably destroy several cities (you do realize that some people DO gamble for fun, completely aware that they are going to lose the money, right?)

So, just certain aspects of Islamic law, or all? Stoning atheists anytime soon? Outlawing homosexuality in general?

Oh, and 1 and 2 would be useless since you'd be in sole control and there'd be no more campaigns until after your death. They wouldn't have to vote the people out, you would just replace them.

Overall, a good plan, but 15 is really the only one that solidly makes your rule one I would hate to be in.

[ganondorfchampin]

I honestly don't know enough about Brazilian politics to do anything.

[xShadowLordx]

Jun 22, 2011 13:38:39 GMT Qwerty said:

I figured it was fine until I got to 15. Dress codes? Seriously? PUBLIC DRESS CODES? What kind of a nation are you trying to make here? You may be the sole ruler but that's no reason to become the sole totalitarian ruler. There's no reason to give people dress codes.

FYI, we already have dress codes in America (Outlawing public nudity is technically a dress code). They're just extremely loose. I'd simply tighten them up a bit.

Jun 22, 2011 13:38:39 GMT Qwerty said:

Outlawing drugs/alcohol I can see, but that move would definitely make you very unpopular. Gay marriage I've been over plenty before. Gambling would probably destroy several cities (you do realize that some people DO gamble for fun, completely aware that they are going to lose the money, right?)

Outlawing it can only help those people who would normally lose it by gambling for fun. Of course, it won't stop them from being stupid enough to want to gamble, but it will stop them from manifesting that stupidity. You know the saying. "You can't fix stupid." But you can fix the effects of stupidity.

Oh, and if a city tanks because it was built on gambling, well, that's their fault. Hard cheese on them.

Jun 22, 2011 13:38:39 GMT Qwerty said:

So, just certain aspects of Islamic law, or all? Stoning atheists anytime soon? Outlawing homosexuality in general?

1. Actually, that's not "certain aspects", that's pretty much the whole thing. An America governed by Islamic law would be quite similar to America today.

2. Islamic law allows freedom of religion. So no, nobody gets stoned for their beliefs.

3. Furthermore, it only outlaws homosexual acts. Homosexuality itself is not a crime. So, no.

Jun 22, 2011 13:38:39 GMT Qwerty said:

Oh, and 1 and 2 would be useless since you'd be in sole control and there'd be no more campaigns until after your death. They wouldn't have to vote the people out, you would just replace them.

Fair enough.

[Qwerty]

Sure, it outlaws homosexual acts. With the death penalty. Cruel and unusual, anyone?

[Mad Cow 483]

Erm... Homosexual acts being outlawed while homosexuality itself is not is kind of like letting people have cars but not allowing anyone to drive them.

Secondly, I don't think flooding the market with homegrown oil is the best way to move 0 net greenhouse gas emissions forward, but I suppose it would help in the short term.

I would add two things: 1. publicly denounce china for its grossly unfair economic practices. Cheap labor itself is not why china is such a good deal for foreign companies, it's a combination of blatantly illegal (under the WTO) practices such as a systematically undervalued currency, counterfeiting of foreign brands, forcing companies to give technology and trade secrets to the Chinese if they wish to operate there, etc. This would have to go in combination with a fairly large tax hike, since they probably wouldnt want too much more of our debt once we pulled up the curtain on them.

2. Put money in the nation's infrastructure, and I mean a lot, we used to have some of the best in the world and now the ASCE rates us at a D+ for infrastructure (especially things like sewers and levees)

Your proposals are good otherwise.

[xShadowLordx]

Jun 29, 2011 0:55:10 GMT Mad Cow 483 said:

Secondly, I don't think flooding the market with homegrown oil is the best way to move 0 net greenhouse gas emissions forward, but I suppose it would help in the short term.

I would add two things: 1. publicly denounce china for its grossly unfair economic practices. Cheap labor itself is not why china is such a good deal for foreign companies, it's a combination of blatantly illegal (under the WTO) practices such as a systematically undervalued currency, counterfeiting of foreign brands, forcing companies to give technology and trade secrets to the Chinese if they wish to operate there, etc. This would have to go in combination with a fairly large tax hike, since they probably wouldnt want too much more of our debt once we pulled up the curtain on them.

2. Put money in the nation's infrastructure, and I mean a lot, we used to have some of the best in the world and now the ASCE rates us at a D+ for infrastructure (especially things like sewers and levees)

Your proposals are good otherwise.

1. The idea is to first get us energy independent, and then move towards alternative fuels. So, yes, a short term fix is part of the process.

2 and 3: I agree completely.

[GloveParty]

Wait, Israel genociding the Palestinians... not meaning to be offending or anything, but I believe tyou've got it the wrong way... Hamas is the one attacking Israel and massacring the Jewish people there.

[xShadowLordx]

Jul 25, 2011 5:36:28 GMT GloveParty said:

Wait, Israel genociding the Palestinians... not meaning to be offending or anything, but I believe tyou've got it the wrong way... Hamas is the one attacking Israel and massacring the Jewish people there.

Hamas =/= general Palestinian population.

Besides, the fact of the matter is, Israel is encroaching on Palestinian land, occupying it, and blocking humanitarian aid. If they're gonna do that, they should expect some kind of retaliation, even if that retaliation comes in the form of terrorist groups like Hamas.

The same concept applies to the US. The US meddled in the Middle East for decades, which helped spawn Al-Qaeda, who then caused 9/11 in retaliation. Sure, 9/11 was terribly atrocious and inhumane, but it was meant to serve as payback.

Now, of course I'm not endorsing the actions of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc. The innocent American and Israeli people do not/did not deserve the terrible attacks they suffered/are suffering. But my point is, terrorist groups like these don't just appear out of nowhere. They appear when you provoke people.

[Fringe Pioneer]

I apologize for bringing up a concern with your own method of rule when I don't even have one yet, but I must ask this: why would you have Supreme Court justices be elected? The very reason that they are appointed for life rather than elected every so often is so that they actually do their jobs rather than, oh, let's say worrying about ruling in a manner that would make a certain constituency happy regardless of whether the decision would be just (or even ethical). Yes, they are appointed by the President (who is guaranteed to look for justices that share his views) and approved by the Senate (who are guaranteed to disapprove of anyone that don't share its views, which may or may not differ fundamentally from those of the President), but after that, they can rule in any manner they decide short of the unethical and unconstitutional without fear of being kicked out by the House of Representatives and the Senate. There have been several instances where a President thought a justice would rule in a consistently pro-*insert President's political ideology here* but the justice ends up making rulings in exactly the opposite manner.

The moment Supreme Court justices are elected is the moment the judicial branch degenerates into yet another vote-minded mess. Please don't make that mistake...

[xShadowLordx]

Aug 1, 2011 18:54:51 GMT Fringe Pioneer said:

I apologize for bringing up a concern with your own method of rule when I don't even have one yet, but I must ask this: why would you have Supreme Court justices be elected? The very reason that they are appointed for life rather than elected every so often is so that they actually do their jobs rather than, oh, let's say worrying about ruling in a manner that would make a certain constituency happy regardless of whether the decision would be just (or even ethical). Yes, they are appointed by the President (who is guaranteed to look for justices that share his views) and approved by the Senate (who are guaranteed to disapprove of anyone that don't share its views, which may or may not differ fundamentally from those of the President), but after that, they can rule in any manner they decide short of the unethical and unconstitutional without fear of being kicked out by the House of Representatives and the Senate. There have been several instances where a President thought a justice would rule in a consistently pro-*insert President's political ideology here* but the justice ends up making rulings in exactly the opposite manner.

The moment Supreme Court justices are elected is the moment the judicial branch degenerates into yet another vote-minded mess. Please don't make that mistake...

First of all, allow me to point out that while the current US Supreme Court is not technically a "vote-minded mess", it certainly operates like one. The Supreme Court is just as corrupt as the Congress, and you can tell by the fact that they have the same views as the corrupt Congressmen. They seek to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, just like their Congressional counterparts. Remember the Arizona campaign finance law that they struck down a few months ago? They claimed it restricted free speech, even though everyone familiar with the Constitution knows it was an unconstitutional, blatant ploy to help corporations buy out our politicians. So, keeping them on for life doesn't fix much. The real problem here is corruption, and if I were in charge, that would be illegal, closely scrutinized, and harshly punished.

Secondly, under my political system, as I have already stated, corporate campaign contributions would be forbidden, so the Justices wouldn't be tempted to serve their interests.

And thirdly, as I have already stated, citizens would have the right to impeach any elected official. So if the Justices somehow become corrupt or otherwise undesirable, the people can kick them out.

[GGoodie]

;tl;dr on everyone's replies to TSL so I will do my own

Jun 22, 2011 5:58:38 GMT xShadowLordx said:

Ooh, interesting. Very interesting. Here's what I would do if I ruled the US:

1. Ban corporations from giving campaign contributions of any kind, so our government would finally stop being so corrupt. I agree, this is a good idea.

2. Publicly tell all the citizens to vote out their incumbent congressmen in the next election. Kind of goes hand in hand with step 1. I agree, any congressmen who are truly beneficial will most likely be reelected in a few years.

3. Immediately dissolve our alliance with Israel, and warn them to stop genociding the Palestinians or else face harsh consequences. I agree, however I feel the "warning" would have to be an empty threat, as we are in no condition right now (nor do we have the right) to police the world.

4. Introduce strict energy independence policies. Obama's current plan I believe calls for the reduction of CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050. Pretty pathetic, eh? I would mandate zero bluehouse gas emissions by 2050 (possibly 2060). I would also immediately institute "Drill, baby, drill!" policies (one of the few things me and Republicans agree on). That means immense offshore oil drilling to secure our energy independence. I agree, however 0 greenhouse gas emissions is not very plausible. Perhaps a 95% reduction would be more realistic.

5. Break all ties with the Saudis (we ain't buying their oil anymore, so they've got no control over us). Publicly condemn them for being a disgraceful, radical, oppressive, pseudo-Islamic state. I agree.

6. Publicly condemn/break all ties with every Arab/Middle East country for the same reason. I agree.

7. Close down all our military bases in foreign countries. We have no business meddling in their affairs. Bring all our soldiers back home, except the ones in Afghanistan/Pakistan. We can leave after we defeat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In fact, I'll chuck another 100,000 troops in there to get it over with once and for all. Terrorists can't operate anywhere if you occupy the whole damn country. I disagree, we should completely withdraw.

8. Extend a warm hand of friendship, as well as some handsome cash and military support, to every country we've ever imperialized upon, to get them on their feet and moving forward for once. Friendship, yes. Money? No. We are in a bit of a deficit crisis if you haven't noticed.

9. Introduce strict economic regulation to stop corporations from oppressing the little guys, and hold them accountable for tanking the economy. Strict regulations require enforcement. Enforcement requires money. I think we want to go easy for a little while on the spending.

10. Consolidate all our 1,000+ intelligence agencies (yes, its true, we actually have that many, go Google it) into one streamlined federal agency. I agree, this is a good idea.

11. Cut down on red tape by eliminating useless bureaucracies and consolidating other programs. I agree, this is a good idea.

12. Eliminate medicare. Leave all medical insurance in private hands, but regulate the crap out of it. I agree, this is a good idea.

13. Eliminate Social Security and all other welfare programs. Institute one simple, efficient, streamlined welfare program that follows one main rule: if you live under the poverty line, you get a certain amount of money every month. No useless red tape, no bureaucracy-choked Rube Goldberg machines. Plain and simple. I agree, this is a good idea.

14. Give a hell of a lot more money to education. That's our future we're talking about. It's an investment, not an expense. I agree, this is a good idea.

15. Institute *gasp* Islamic law. (Read: Outlaw gambling, alcohol, drugs, fornication, adultery, gay marriage, dissolve the stock market (honestly, it serves no purpose other than to line the pockets of speculators who don't give a shit about the companies they "invest" in), institute relatively strict dress codes, bring back the death penalty to every state.) No. Trying to restrict morality and behavior (when victim-less or merely self-destructive) is unjust. Especially when based on something that isn't even democratically agreed on.

16. Give citizens more political rights. Allow them to directly vote for Supreme Court Justices (I would also change the term for Justices to 10 years instead of life). Give citizens the ability to directly impeach Justices, as well as congressmen and the President. Also give them the ability to directly hold referenda and vote on constitutional amendments. I agree, however direct voting would be logistically impossible in a country this size.

Will add more if I think of them.

[droctagonapus]

First of all, I would make advertisement of cigarettes, cigars, and other tobacco products illegal.
Ideally, i would make selling them illegal, but we don't want a repeat of the problem when alcohol was banned do we.(buildings were made where people would secretly buy alcohol, as well as do other illegal things. The thing is, most people liked the buildings, and other types of crime were probably increased because they associated them, and they wanted alcohol). If cigarettes were all out banned, I think a similar situation would occur.

also I would tax alcohol and tobacco products a lot.

I would also add a list that people could join that would make it illegal to sell them tobacco products or alcohol until they left said list. however, a person would have to wait a month after their request to be off the list.

On military matters: I would have to read up on strategy to make decisions about that.

On corporation donated campaign contributions:Ideally corporations could not give campaign donations or pay lobbyists, but this leaves questions about weather an individual can.
If an individual lobby on their own behalf, what is to stop a corporation from hiring someone with a cushy job, and ask them to lobby for them, or to keep the owner from contributing personally?

if an individual cannot do these things, where are politicians to get their information. You cant assume they will be well versed in every subject. If they hire advisers, these advisers would have a lot of power.

NOTE:yeah, I originally agreed that there should be no lobbyists, but I became aware of these problems, which need solutions.

On the car thing: no its more like not allowing them to drive, but allowing them to BE a car. and yes, i would forbid them to drive. but of course i would allow them to be a car.

On voting: it is provably impossible to make a perfect voting system. All voting systems are subject to strategic voting (meaning voting contrary to your order of preference in order to get the closest to your preference). This has been proven mathematically. They also all can misrepresent society's preferences. There is also no fair way to allocate a fair number of representatives between states.

however, as voting will likely be required, the first thing to check for is obviously an absolute majority, and then if none is found, a Condorcet winner. If there is no Condorcet winner, check a modified Borda count, and see if there is anything strange with it.

This modified borda count would work like this.

given n choices, each person would compare their least favorite from every subgroup with their least favorite from the complimentary subgroup.

eg.with a b c d and e each person would compare their least favorite of a or b to their least favorite of cd or e,
same with d and a b c and e.

This would hopefully remove much of the problem of strategic voting by insuring that EVERYONE voted strategically.
of course, this would still have problems, although i have not thought of what they are.

also, this voting would be very time consuming, yes. I understand that. You don't have to fill out the entire form.

also, maximum bill length.

All bills should be short enough to be read in one sitting. all people voting in support of a bill must have read the entire thing.

[xShadowLordx]

Aug 2, 2011 3:59:14 GMT GGoodie said:

;tl;dr on everyone's replies to TSL so I will do my own

Jun 22, 2011 5:58:38 GMT xShadowLordx said:

Ooh, interesting. Very interesting. Here's what I would do if I ruled the US:

1. Ban corporations from giving campaign contributions of any kind, so our government would finally stop being so corrupt. I agree, this is a good idea.

2. Publicly tell all the citizens to vote out their incumbent congressmen in the next election. Kind of goes hand in hand with step 1. I agree, any congressmen who are truly beneficial will most likely be reelected in a few years.

3. Immediately dissolve our alliance with Israel, and warn them to stop genociding the Palestinians or else face harsh consequences. I agree, however I feel the "warning" would have to be an empty threat, as we are in no condition right now (nor do we have the right) to police the world.

4. Introduce strict energy independence policies. Obama's current plan I believe calls for the reduction of CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050. Pretty pathetic, eh? I would mandate zero bluehouse gas emissions by 2050 (possibly 2060). I would also immediately institute "Drill, baby, drill!" policies (one of the few things me and Republicans agree on). That means immense offshore oil drilling to secure our energy independence. I agree, however 0 greenhouse gas emissions is not very plausible. Perhaps a 95% reduction would be more realistic.

5. Break all ties with the Saudis (we ain't buying their oil anymore, so they've got no control over us). Publicly condemn them for being a disgraceful, radical, oppressive, pseudo-Islamic state. I agree.

6. Publicly condemn/break all ties with every Arab/Middle East country for the same reason. I agree.

7. Close down all our military bases in foreign countries. We have no business meddling in their affairs. Bring all our soldiers back home, except the ones in Afghanistan/Pakistan. We can leave after we defeat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In fact, I'll chuck another 100,000 troops in there to get it over with once and for all. Terrorists can't operate anywhere if you occupy the whole damn country. I disagree, we should completely withdraw.

8. Extend a warm hand of friendship, as well as some handsome cash and military support, to every country we've ever imperialized upon, to get them on their feet and moving forward for once. Friendship, yes. Money? No. We are in a bit of a deficit crisis if you haven't noticed.

9. Introduce strict economic regulation to stop corporations from oppressing the little guys, and hold them accountable for tanking the economy. Strict regulations require enforcement. Enforcement requires money. I think we want to go easy for a little while on the spending.

10. Consolidate all our 1,000+ intelligence agencies (yes, its true, we actually have that many, go Google it) into one streamlined federal agency. I agree, this is a good idea.

11. Cut down on red tape by eliminating useless bureaucracies and consolidating other programs. I agree, this is a good idea.

12. Eliminate medicare. Leave all medical insurance in private hands, but regulate the crap out of it. I agree, this is a good idea.

13. Eliminate Social Security and all other welfare programs. Institute one simple, efficient, streamlined welfare program that follows one main rule: if you live under the poverty line, you get a certain amount of money every month. No useless red tape, no bureaucracy-choked Rube Goldberg machines. Plain and simple. I agree, this is a good idea.

14. Give a hell of a lot more money to education. That's our future we're talking about. It's an investment, not an expense. I agree, this is a good idea.

15. Institute *gasp* Islamic law. (Read: Outlaw gambling, alcohol, drugs, fornication, adultery, gay marriage, dissolve the stock market (honestly, it serves no purpose other than to line the pockets of speculators who don't give a shit about the companies they "invest" in), institute relatively strict dress codes, bring back the death penalty to every state.) No. Trying to restrict morality and behavior (when victim-less or merely self-destructive) is unjust. Especially when based on something that isn't even democratically agreed on.

16. Give citizens more political rights. Allow them to directly vote for Supreme Court Justices (I would also change the term for Justices to 10 years instead of life). Give citizens the ability to directly impeach Justices, as well as congressmen and the President. Also give them the ability to directly hold referenda and vote on constitutional amendments. I agree, however direct voting would be logistically impossible in a country this size.

Will add more if I think of them.

In response to the blue text:

1. Israel is a puny, relatively weak country, and we're a superpower. Even with the current sorry state of our economy and our spread-thin military, we can certainly afford to warn Israel, of all countries. Besides, every country in the region hates Israel anyway, and if push came to shove, they'd probably help us out.

2. Sure, I can deal with 95%.

3. The money would probably come after we fix out economy.

4. If it's possible to have direct, universal voting in elections, there's absolutely no excuse why we can't have the same thing for bills, impeachments, etc.

[Qwerty]

The main point in the Islamic law thing is that it isn't democratic. It's blocking victimless crimes and mostly decent acts (believe it or not most people gamble for entertainment and aren't addicted to it) in a system based on a minority religion without any of the people getting a say. They don't get to vote for it. On top of that, it would be impossible to enforce, leading to times much like the Prohibition era (only far worse since it's more than just alcohol being blocked), rife with underground crime.

[xShadowLordx]

Aug 3, 2011 8:13:01 GMT Qwerty said:

The main point in the Islamic law thing is that it isn't democratic. It's blocking victimless crimes and mostly decent acts (believe it or not most people gamble for entertainment and aren't addicted to it) in a system based on a minority religion without any of the people getting a say. They don't get to vote for it. On top of that, it would be impossible to enforce, leading to times much like the Prohibition era (only far worse since it's more than just alcohol being blocked), rife with underground crime.

First of all, the use of drugs and alcohol does have a victim: The user.

Secondly, there's nothing wrong with gambling as long as there's no real money involved. The principles behind banning it are that people shouldn't be able to get money based on pure luck without doing anything to earn it.

Thirdly, just because you're not hurting someone physically, doesn't mean an action has no victim. For example, take the dress code issue. This isn't a problem with men, but when women dress provocatively, they're hurting themselves by treating themselves like objects and placing excessive value on their appearance, and likewise, they're psychology hurting society at large by creating that mindset.

The reason Islamic law bans these kinds of things is not just because "It's a crime against the LORD!!11!11one!!11". It's also because these things really do have adverse affects on society.

[GGoodie]

Aug 3, 2011 21:34:35 GMT xShadowLordx said:

snip.

First of all, the use of drugs and alcohol does have a victim: The user.

Secondly, there's nothing wrong with gambling as long as there's no real money involved. The principles behind banning it are that people shouldn't be able to get money based on pure luck without doing anything to earn it.

Thirdly, just because you're not hurting someone physically, doesn't mean an action has no victim. For example, take the dress code issue. This isn't a problem with men, but when women dress provocatively, they're hurting themselves by treating themselves like objects and placing excessive value on their appearance, and likewise, they're psychology hurting society at large by creating that mindset.

The reason Islamic law bans these kinds of things is not just because "It's a crime against the LORD!!11!11one!!11". It's also because these things really do have adverse affects on society.[/quote]

People should have a right to do as they please as long as they do not interfere adversely in someone else's life. Adults can choose to responsibly make decisions or gamble and drink away their money. It's their life, they should be able to do as they please. Also, it isn't women dressing "provocatively" that hurts a society; it's deeming such appearances as provocative (in a negative sense) in the first place. As a society we have a strange problem with nudity and sexual expression not found in other species.